Date of Filing:09.03.2010<br /> Date of Order: 30.07.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF JULY 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 518 OF 2010 <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri R. Bharadwaj,<br /> No.61, Balaji Street,<br /> 4th Cross, Ramamurthynagar,<br /> Dooravani Nagar Post,<br /> Bangalore-16. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> The Manager-Sales,<br /> M/s. Anu Solar Power Pvt., Ltd., <br /> No.248, 3rd Cross,<br /> 8th Main, 3rd Phase, Peenya Indl. Area,<br /> Bangalore-48 Opposite party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The brief facts of the case are that, during February, 2006 the opposite party Manager explained their products and recommended to install 160 LPD Anu Genext to his house. Rs.5,000/- was given as advance and balance amount of Rs.16,640/- was given at the time of delivery. The unit was installed on 11th March 2006. During February, 2008 heater was not working up to the level. The opposite party sent a technician on 11th February, 2008. During April, 2008 the complainant explains the same problem, a technician was sent on 2nd April, 2008. They notice that the heater coil had to be replaced. He took service charges of Rs.300/- and Rs.550/- was charged for the coil. During May, 2009 again the same problem was faced. The system failed in summer. After checkup he informed that the motor failed and had to be replaced costing Rs.2,000/-. The complainant disagreed. It is the Companies responsibility to replace, if they found it is a failure. The complainant requested to complete replacement of the unit. Electricity consumption was high when the equipment was connected to Electricity as against the promise. Therefore, the complainant requested to replacement of the equipment or repayment of entire amount of Rs.21,651/- with interest. <br /> 2. The opposite party has filed defense version stating that, the complainant had purchased solar water heating system from the opposite party on 11-3-2006. The complainant enjoyed the benefit of the water heater for about 2 years. The service was attended call sheets were given to the complainant after inspection. The opposite party admitted collecting Rs.300/- towards service charges and Rs.550/- as cost of coil. Hot water circulation pump is not working and suggested to the complainant to replace the same which will cost around Rs.2,000/-. The complainant is not ready to pay the amount. The opposite party’s were ready to provide service and replace the hot water circulation pump. The intention of the complainant is to get new system without extra cost. <br /> <br /> 3. The respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents. Heard, the arguments on both the sides. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for cost of the solar water heater system from the opposite party?<br /> 3. What relief and order?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased 160 LPD Anu Genext Solar Water heater from the opposite party for Rs.21,651/- on 11th March 2006. The complainant has produced tax invoice at Exhibit C1. The system worked for 2 years without any complaint. Thereafter the problem started with the system. The complainant lodged complaint to the opposite party that the system is not working properly. The complainant in all produced 5 service call sheets. The technician of the opposite party inspected the system and defects were rectified on all the 5 times. But, still it is the case of the complainant the system is not working properly and water are not getting heat. The electricity backup fixed to the system is also not working properly and the complainant has getting higher electricity bills. The opposite party technician suggested for replacing motor which is not working and asked the complainant to pay Rs.2,000/- but, the complainant refused to pay the amount. As per the Web site advertisement given by the opposite party company the expected life of the solar water heater is 15-20 years, believing that website of the company the complainant purchased the system from the opposite party by investing his heard earned money. The complainant is a retired employee of the public sector company and he has suffered financial loss and mental agony on account of the defective system installed by the opposite party. The learned advocate for the complainant fairly submitted during course of the argument that since the system was worked 2 years some reasonable amount may be given reduction while ordering the refund of the cost. The learned advocate submits that the system installed by the opposite party is a failure one it is not giving good result. The customers are complaining about the working condition of this model system. She argued that the complainant is not ready to take replacement, he is now interested in now taking refund. Therefore, she requested to pass orders against the opposite party to refund the cost of the system by giving some reduction. The submission of the counsel for the complainant is quite, just, fair and reasonable. The complainant is a consumer under the CP Act. The Act is social and benevolent act intended to protect the better interest of the consumers. The interest of the present complainant is deserves to be protected. Since, the system supplied by the opposite party is found to be defective and not working properly. Therefore, the opposite party has committed deficiency of service in installing a defective system. The complainant is entitled for refund of the cost, however the system had worked for 2 years. Therefore, out of Rs.21,651/- it would be just, fair and reasonable to order the opposite party to refund Rs.18,000/- to the complainant and the opposite party shall take back the system after paying the amount of Rs.18,000/- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.18,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within the 45 days the said amount carries interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing this order till payment / realization. <br /> 7. The opposite party shall take back the system after paying the above amount to the complainant. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th DAY OF JULY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br />